Do you prefer fluoride in your water?

[naturalbornhawk]

It's been called one of the top public health achievements in the 20th century, but could it possibly have a negative impact on public health?

A new study finds an association between water fluoridation and lowered child IQ scores.

The study has its limitations, but here is another area where more research is needed.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/health/fluoride-neurotoxin-canada-study/index.html?no-st=1566442668

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634

 

[LuciousBDragon]

It's been called one of the top public health achievements in the 20th century, but could it possibly have a negative impact on public health?

A new study finds an association between water fluoridation and lowered child IQ scores.

The study has its limitations, but here is another area where more research is needed.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/health/fluoride-neurotoxin-canada-study/index.html?no-st=1566442668

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634

 

[TheCainer]

Damm! Beat me to it. lol

 

[Pinehawk]

I guess we have to choose between teeth and a few IQ points. That’s unfortunate.

 

[Joes Place]

The authors and an accompanying editorial acknowledged that while the study wasn't conclusive, it added to an important discussion around the safety of community fluoridation for expectant mothers.

"No single observational study provides a definitive test of a hypothesis," wrote editorial author David Bellinger, a professor of neurology at Harvard University.
..
The authors acknowledged that the study had several limitations.

First, the urinary fluoride samples collected could have been affected by behaviours that weren't controlled for in the study (e.g. consumption of fluoride-free bottled water or fluoride-containing toothpaste prior to sampling). The samples may also not precisely reflect foetal exposure to fluoride throughout pregnancy.

Second, the fluoride intake data did not measure actual fluoride concentration in tap water in the participants' homes. Rather, it was an estimate of fluoride intake based on self-reported beverage consumption, and did not include fluoride from other sources, such as dental products and food.

Reproductive epidemiologist Michael Davies from the University of Adelaide said the study was not appropriately designed.

"Neither the method for collecting maternal fluoride exposure data nor the method for calculating total fluoride exposure have been validated, making the size and source of associations unreliable," Professor Davies said.

"If you look at the figures, it's only the individuals which have the very highest levels of fluoride whose children have any IQ lowering, and it's a pretty small drop."

While the authors report a 1 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride is associated with a 4.5 lower IQ score in boys, Professor McAlonan said the average difference in fluoride levels between people living in low- and high-fluoride areas is about 0.3 mg/L.​

"Also, if you look at average IQ in the children from fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups, these are virtually the same: 108.07 vs. 108.21 respectively," he said.​

So, there we go. Our resident anti-vaxxers using their same lack of understanding of science on fluoridated water...

 

[Joes Place]

The study has its limitations, but here is another area where more research is needed.

Actually, there's quite a bit of "other research", which hasn't found any effects.

Statistically speaking, you run 20 studies on this, and one of them is going to find a trend when using an alpha of 0.05.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

I guess we have to choose between teeth and a few IQ points. That’s unfortunate.

You don't really have to choose though. If you still want fluoride in your life, topical application provides the health benefit.

 

[Fijimn]

Who drinks tap water anymore? Lots of poors on this board

 

[fan_4_life]

 

[mstp1992]

The authors and an accompanying editorial acknowledged that while the study wasn't conclusive, it added to an important discussion around the safety of community fluoridation for expectant mothers.

"No single observational study provides a definitive test of a hypothesis," wrote editorial author David Bellinger, a professor of neurology at Harvard University.
..
The authors acknowledged that the study had several limitations.

First, the urinary fluoride samples collected could have been affected by behaviours that weren't controlled for in the study (e.g. consumption of fluoride-free bottled water or fluoride-containing toothpaste prior to sampling). The samples may also not precisely reflect foetal exposure to fluoride throughout pregnancy.

Second, the fluoride intake data did not measure actual fluoride concentration in tap water in the participants' homes. Rather, it was an estimate of fluoride intake based on self-reported beverage consumption, and did not include fluoride from other sources, such as dental products and food.

Reproductive epidemiologist Michael Davies from the University of Adelaide said the study was not appropriately designed.

"Neither the method for collecting maternal fluoride exposure data nor the method for calculating total fluoride exposure have been validated, making the size and source of associations unreliable," Professor Davies said.

"If you look at the figures, it's only the individuals which have the very highest levels of fluoride whose children have any IQ lowering, and it's a pretty small drop."

While the authors report a 1 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride is associated with a 4.5 lower IQ score in boys, Professor McAlonan said the average difference in fluoride levels between people living in low- and high-fluoride areas is about 0.3 mg/L.​

"Also, if you look at average IQ in the children from fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups, these are virtually the same: 108.07 vs. 108.21 respectively," he said.​

So, there we go. Our resident anti-vaxxers using their same lack of understanding of science on fluoridated water...

How the heck did this get through peer-review? Their conclusions are in no way supported by the data. There's no mention of correcting for multiple comparisons (e.g., Bonferroni). The confidence intervals for the data they report as being supposedly 'significantly different' are huge by standards of these types of studies.

Now, since this was a prospective study, they should continue to assess these children as they go through school and see what their IQs and academic achievement scores are by the time they turn 18 or so. If they are able to show continued divergence between fluoridated children and non-fluoridated children (i.e., children exposed long-term to fluoride perform worse and develop at a slower rate...) then they might have something. However, I'm not particularly sanguine this would be the outcome. In fact, knowing how dental health is related to overall health and intellectual/academic achievement I would predict the reverse trend at the end point.

 

[Joes Place]

How the heck did this get through peer-review? Their conclusions are in no way supported by the data. There's no mention of correcting for multiple comparisons (e.g., Bonferroni). The confidence intervals for the data they report as being supposedly 'significantly different' are huge by standards of these types of studies.

Aw, shit.....they did multiple comparisons, too, with no Bonferroni-adjusted alpha?

Seen it a million times. Rookie mistake.

That, and ignoring intraclass correlations on certain study designs, and assuming they're independent data points.....

 

[naturalbornhawk]

The authors and an accompanying editorial acknowledged that while the study wasn't conclusive, it added to an important discussion around the safety of community fluoridation for expectant mothers.

"No single observational study provides a definitive test of a hypothesis," wrote editorial author David Bellinger, a professor of neurology at Harvard University.
..
The authors acknowledged that the study had several limitations.

First, the urinary fluoride samples collected could have been affected by behaviours that weren't controlled for in the study (e.g. consumption of fluoride-free bottled water or fluoride-containing toothpaste prior to sampling). The samples may also not precisely reflect foetal exposure to fluoride throughout pregnancy.

Second, the fluoride intake data did not measure actual fluoride concentration in tap water in the participants' homes. Rather, it was an estimate of fluoride intake based on self-reported beverage consumption, and did not include fluoride from other sources, such as dental products and food.

Reproductive epidemiologist Michael Davies from the University of Adelaide said the study was not appropriately designed.

"Neither the method for collecting maternal fluoride exposure data nor the method for calculating total fluoride exposure have been validated, making the size and source of associations unreliable," Professor Davies said.

"If you look at the figures, it's only the individuals which have the very highest levels of fluoride whose children have any IQ lowering, and it's a pretty small drop."

While the authors report a 1 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride is associated with a 4.5 lower IQ score in boys, Professor McAlonan said the average difference in fluoride levels between people living in low- and high-fluoride areas is about 0.3 mg/L.​

"Also, if you look at average IQ in the children from fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups, these are virtually the same: 108.07 vs. 108.21 respectively," he said.​

So, there we go. Our resident anti-vaxxers using their same lack of understanding of science on fluoridated water...

Either you just go looking for a fight, or you just love yourself environmental toxins. I bet you're on about 10 prescription meds too. You'd probably tell your pregnant wife to load up on tap water as well.

 

[Joes Place]

Either you just go looking for a fight, or you just love yourself environmental toxins.

No. I just know what a Bonferroni adjusted alpha means.

 

[unIowa]

I do believe fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in nature so even if you are on a well there is a chance you have fluoride in your water and you should test it to see if the amounts are zero, trace, or even too high.

The shit is used for mind control also.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

Wait...so does this mean the Cavity Creeps were the good guys?

 

[tumorboy]

I thought Alex Jones said it turns I ghey.

 

[BABiscuit]

Does this study account for the fact low iq kids are probably too dumb to spit out their toothpaste which could lead to higher flouride levels?

 

[fsu1jreed]

Yes, because I actually know the science behind it.

In briefly reading the study, three things immediately stand out:

The authors of the new study assessed 601 Canadian mother and child pairs, tracking the fluoride exposure of 512 of the mothers by looking at the average concentration of fluoride in urine samples taken throughout their pregnancies as a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure.

• That's an EXTREMELY small sample size (which by itself is a problem), which makes me think that they were all from the same geographic research area in which case there could be a multitude of of other factors affecting the IQ results.

Between the ages of 3 and 4, all children born from the studied mothers were tested for IQ.

• I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about the protocols concerning IQ tests, but can you actually even get an accurate result on children that young? And wouldn't you need at least two IQ tests taken a few years apart to accurately test for IQ? I was having trouble in school in 5th grade so my mom to my to a psychiatrist and they gave me an IQ test because I didn't test for having a chemical imbalance, etc. and I distinctly remember them saying that these were preliminary results and to really get an accurate result I would have to take it again at some point (that way they could say the score wasn't being affected by my mood, lack of sleep, etc., etc.

The authors found that for each additional 1 milligram per liter in concentration of fluoride in a mother's urine, there was a 4.5-point drop in IQ in males. The study did not find such a significant association in female children, nor did it examine why boys were more significantly affected.

• Okay, this is a huge one. If Fluoride was really to blame then one would expect to see roughly the same results in both Female and Male students. I refuse to believe that women pregnant with females would somehow be able to process the fluoride differently from women pregnant with males.

 

[mstp1992]

Yes, because I actually know the science behind it.

In briefly reading the study, three things immediately stand out:

The authors of the new study assessed 601 Canadian mother and child pairs, tracking the fluoride exposure of 512 of the mothers by looking at the average concentration of fluoride in urine samples taken throughout their pregnancies as a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure.

• That's an EXTREMELY small sample size (which by itself is a problem), which makes me think that they were all from the same geographic research area in which case there could be a multitude of of other factors affecting the IQ results.

Between the ages of 3 and 4, all children born from the studied mothers were tested for IQ.

• I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about the protocols concerning IQ tests, but can you actually even get an accurate result on children that young? And wouldn't you need at least two IQ tests taken a few years apart to accurately test for IQ? I was having trouble in school in 5th grade so my mom to my to a psychiatrist and they gave me an IQ test because I didn't test for having a chemical imbalance, etc. and I distinctly remember them saying that these were preliminary results and to really get an accurate result I would have to take it again at some point (that way they could say the score wasn't being affected by my mood, lack of sleep, etc., etc.

The authors found that for each additional 1 milligram per liter in concentration of fluoride in a mother's urine, there was a 4.5-point drop in IQ in males. The study did not find such a significant association in female children, nor did it examine why boys were more significantly affected.

• Okay, this is a huge one. If Fluoride was really to blame then one would expect to see roughly the same results in both Female and Male students. I refuse to believe that women pregnant with females would somehow be able to process the fluoride differently from women pregnant with males.

IQ tests are notably unreliable at the preschool level, but can be reasonably accurate if all the external variables are accounted for. I didn't read all the supplemental material, but I wonder if some of the IQ scores needed to be prorated (i.e., some subtests from the battery were not administered for various reasons).
The Wechsler intelligence scales are standardized such that a score of 100 is the 50th %ile. One standard deviation is 15 points. All the reported data are well within any reasonable margin of error (one can just plot the IQs and SDs of the groups on a bar graph and the error bars would overlap substantially. The take home message from the data should be that the IQs are virtually identical across groups.

Based on these data I'd say there are no clinically significant differences between the fluoridated group and non-fluoridated group.

As I said before, if they carry this study out in the same subjects over years let's say to age 18 or so, then measure their IQs and academic achievement at that point and see if the two groups diverge from this baseline testing then they might have something.

 

[Derekd3408]

I actually prefer a 50/50 fluoride/water mix over ice with a jigger of titos. Refreshing.

 

[curt26]

You don't really have to choose though. If you still want fluoride in your life, topical application provides the health benefit.

False. Systemic fluoride is helpful in proper development of adult teeth (so it’s only important for kids to get some... you no longer need fluoride in your water as an adult). Topical fluoride is important for everyone regardless of age.. but you shouldn’t be ingesting it. But those 2 things are very different. You can’t fix a developmental enamel defect with topical fluoride.

Just make sure your kids drink fluoridated water once in a while and they’ll be fine.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

No. I just know what a Bonferroni adjusted alpha means.

Yes, because I actually know the science behind it.

In briefly reading the study, three things immediately stand out:

The authors of the new study assessed 601 Canadian mother and child pairs, tracking the fluoride exposure of 512 of the mothers by looking at the average concentration of fluoride in urine samples taken throughout their pregnancies as a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure.

• That's an EXTREMELY small sample size (which by itself is a problem), which makes me think that they were all from the same geographic research area in which case there could be a multitude of of other factors affecting the IQ results.

Between the ages of 3 and 4, all children born from the studied mothers were tested for IQ.

• I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about the protocols concerning IQ tests, but can you actually even get an accurate result on children that young? And wouldn't you need at least two IQ tests taken a few years apart to accurately test for IQ? I was having trouble in school in 5th grade so my mom to my to a psychiatrist and they gave me an IQ test because I didn't test for having a chemical imbalance, etc. and I distinctly remember them saying that these were preliminary results and to really get an accurate result I would have to take it again at some point (that way they could say the score wasn't being affected by my mood, lack of sleep, etc., etc.

The authors found that for each additional 1 milligram per liter in concentration of fluoride in a mother's urine, there was a 4.5-point drop in IQ in males. The study did not find such a significant association in female children, nor did it examine why boys were more significantly affected.

• Okay, this is a huge one. If Fluoride was really to blame then one would expect to see roughly the same results in both Female and Male students. I refuse to believe that women pregnant with females would somehow be able to process the fluoride differently from women pregnant with males.

IQ tests are notably unreliable at the preschool level, but can be reasonably accurate if all the external variables are accounted for. I didn't read all the supplemental material, but I wonder if some of the IQ scores needed to be prorated (i.e., some subtests from the battery were not administered for various reasons).
The Wechsler intelligence scales are standardized such that a score of 100 is the 50th %ile. One standard deviation is 15 points. All the reported data are well within any reasonable margin of error (one can just plot the IQs and SDs of the groups on a bar graph and the error bars would overlap substantially. The take home message from the data should be that the IQs are virtually identical across groups.

Based on these data I'd say there are no clinically significant differences between the fluoridated group and non-fluoridated group.

As I said before, if they carry this study out in the same subjects over years let's say to age 18 or so, then measure their IQs and academic achievement at that point and see if the two groups diverge from this baseline testing then they might have something.

Would any one of you care to admit you'd encourage your wife to consistently load up on fluoridated tap water while she was pregnant?

 

[Joes Place]

Would any one of you care to admit you'd encourage your wife to consistently load up on fluoridated tap water while she was pregnant?

I'd have her wash down some GMOs with it...

 

[The Tradition]

Actually, there's quite a bit of "other research", which hasn't found any effects.

Statistically speaking, you run 20 studies on this, and one of them is going to find a trend when using an alpha of 0.05.

Is that like how climate change research works?

 

[Joes Place]

Is that like how climate change research works?

No

 

[Gonolz]

Fluoride, duh?

 

[fsu1jreed]

Would any one of you care to admit you'd encourage your wife to consistently load up on fluoridated tap water while she was pregnant?

I wouldn't even think to, because that would be way down the list (like in the 2000+) of things I would even be thinking about asking my pregnant wife to do.

Listen, is there an extremely small percentage of the population where the fluoride in the water MIGHT adversely impact for one reason or another? Sure, I think any logical person would acknowledge that, but that could be with ANYTHING. Are there benefits to an extremely large percentage of the population? That's without question. And for the rest it's neutral.....and that too is as with ANYTHING.

But none of this negates the fact that there is some faulty reasoning in said study, I highlighted a few and I haven't even read the actual article. Now does it warrant further study? Sure, I think it's met the bar for that.......but since I like to think of myself being a scientific person, my bar is set pretty low. There's very few things, IMO, that DON'T warrant further study, even if it's only to add to current knowledge........that's just the positivist in me.

 

[Tenacious E]

IQ tests are notably unreliable at the preschool level, but can be reasonably accurate if all the external variables are accounted for. I didn't read all the supplemental material, but I wonder if some of the IQ scores needed to be prorated (i.e., some subtests from the battery were not administered for various reasons).
The Wechsler intelligence scales are standardized such that a score of 100 is the 50th %ile. One standard deviation is 15 points. All the reported data are well within any reasonable margin of error (one can just plot the IQs and SDs of the groups on a bar graph and the error bars would overlap substantially. The take home message from the data should be that the IQs are virtually identical across groups.

Based on these data I'd say there are no clinically significant differences between the fluoridated group and non-fluoridated group.

As I said before, if they carry this study out in the same subjects over years let's say to age 18 or so, then measure their IQs and academic achievement at that point and see if the two groups diverge from this baseline testing then they might have something.

The doctors and scientists in this thread be like:

 

[Joes Place]

The doctors and scientists in this thread be like:

I LOL'd

 

[mstp1992]

I LOL'd

Out loud, no less..

 

[mstp1992]

Is that like how climate change research works?

Ummm, no.

I take it you've never had a statistics course.

 

[mstp1992]

Would any one of you care to admit you'd encourage your wife to consistently load up on fluoridated tap water while she was pregnant?

Based on the extant literature, drinking a normal amount of fluoridated tap water (i.e., an amount sufficient to sate one's hydration needs) poses no risk to a developing fetus. The study you linked is rife with methodological flaws, especially in their statistical analyses and conclusions.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

The doctors and scientists in this thread be like:

I love the gif btw, but it should be pointed out that right from the top it was acknowledged the study had it's limitations, and the article I linked had a full list of reasons why.

A few things worth noting is this isn't the only study that's linked fluoride to lowered IQ scores, and there are many scientists that I've come across that have very different opinions on it than our resident HROT scientists.

According to the article linked below:
"As of June 2018, a total of 60 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and over 40 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 53 studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans, while 45 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory capacity of animals. The human studies, which are based on IQ examinations of over 15,000 children, provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure during the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain.

After reviewing 27 of the human IQ studies, a team of Harvard scientistsconcluded that fluoride’s effect on the young brain should now be a “high research priority.” (Choi, et al 2012). Other reviewers have reached similar conclusions, including the prestigious National Research Council (NRC), and scientists in the Neurotoxicology Division of the Environmental Protection Agency (Mundy, et al)."

The link also has a "methodological limitations" discussion which I'm sure someone here will find and post here in red bold.

Their conclusion would be in line with mine in that "When considering their consistency with numerous animal studies, it is very unlikely that the 53 human studies finding associations between fluoride and reduced IQ can all be a random fluke."

As for me I would tend to error on the side of caution when it comes to children. You guys go ahead and take your chances. If you keep scrolling down there's a whole section that gives a brief synopsis of each aspect of all 53 studies.

http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/

 

[Joes Place]

Of these investigations, 53 studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans, while 45 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory capacity of animals.

Excessive alcohol consumption is also associated with fetal development impairment, cancer and liver disease.

But we still drink it, and a glass a day is considered 'safe' for pregnant women to have.

I don't really care if "45 animal studies" found a link, if the amounts we're talking about are inconsistent with ingestion from fluoridated water - which appears to be the case.

You're simply muddling lots of unrelated stuff together, because you do not understand it.

 

[Tenacious E]

Excessive alcohol consumption is also associated with fetal development impairment, cancer and liver disease.

But we still drink it, and a glass a day is considered 'safe' for pregnant women to have.

I don't really care if "45 animal studies" found a link, if the amounts we're talking about are inconsistent with ingestion from fluoridated water - which appears to be the case.

You're simply muddling lots of unrelated stuff together, because you do not understand it.

I'm sure he's great at whatever arena he works in but he is fighting way outside of his weight class in this arena. In GoT terms, I'm sure he thinks he is like:

but it is really like:

 

[fsu1jreed]

I love the gif btw, but it should be pointed out that right from the top it was acknowledged the study had it's limitations, and the article I linked had a full list of reasons why.

A few things worth noting is this isn't the only study that's linked fluoride to lowered IQ scores, and there are many scientists that I've come across that have very different opinions on it than our resident HROT scientists.

According to the article linked below:
"As of June 2018, a total of 60 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and over 40 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 53 studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans, while 45 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory capacity of animals. The human studies, which are based on IQ examinations of over 15,000 children, provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure during the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain.

After reviewing 27 of the human IQ studies, a team of Harvard scientistsconcluded that fluoride’s effect on the young brain should now be a “high research priority.” (Choi, et al 2012). Other reviewers have reached similar conclusions, including the prestigious National Research Council (NRC), and scientists in the Neurotoxicology Division of the Environmental Protection Agency (Mundy, et al)."

The link also has a "methodological limitations" discussion which I'm sure someone here will find and post here in red bold.

Their conclusion would be in line with mine in that "When considering their consistency with numerous animal studies, it is very unlikely that the 53 human studies finding associations between fluoride and reduced IQ can all be a random fluke."

As for me I would tend to error on the side of caution when it comes to children. You guys go ahead and take your chances. If you keep scrolling down there's a whole section that gives a brief synopsis of each aspect of all 53 studies.

http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/

I went and looked up the actual studies that said site was referencing, and of course it took some time BECAUSE some of their links were broke......and I also notice that's there's a key word missing from this statement:

"When considering their consistency with numerous animal studies, it is very unlikely that the 53 human studies finding associations between fluoride and reduced IQ can all be a random fluke."

And that word is significant.......which many of the studies also admit, because they themselves said they didn't have enough information to conclude if anything was significant.

But back to the studies:

Nearly all are talking about natural fluoride levels in ground drinking water and many are so many times higher than what is found in our drinking water, such as the study from the Birbhum district, India with fluoride levels as high as ~13 mg/L (for reference .7 mg/L is the US recommended levels and many water utilities are actually .3-.5 mg/L) and the Jaipur, Rajasthan (India) with high natural fluoride levels of ~6 mg/L.

And then there's the size of the studies, only 2 of the 53 studies hits the 1000 mark (2,886 and 1,000), with more than half being BELOW 200 and most of those are below 100.........such as the two studies above being 40 children and 60 children respectively. There's absolutely no way you can take a district with 3+ million people (i.e. Birbhum district, India) and use a study size of 40 (which probably wasn't random either) to predict ANYTHING about ANY potential "associations" going on there.

 

[Joes Place]

Nearly all are talking about natural fluoride levels in ground drinking water and many are so many times higher than what is found in our drinking water, such as the study from the Birbhum district, India with fluoride levels as high as ~13 mg/L (for reference .7 mg/L is the US recommended levels and many water utilities are actually .3-.5 mg/L) and the Jaipur, Rajasthan (India) with high natural fluoride levels of ~6 mg/L.

Wow.....almost 20x and 10x, respectively, compared with "recommended" US levels, and 20x-40x with respect to "actual" US levels.

Yep, that's some "sound" science our resident idiot is quoting there....

It'd be like recommending a pregnant woman limit her alcohol intake to 1 glass a day, once a week, but then they "accidentally" drank 20-40 glasses a day during each week of pregnancy. Pretty certain that'd have a "negative" effect - w/o even needing any statistics to sort out those effects....

Will @naturalbornhawk come back and admit how bad his links/comparisons are?
Or will he double-down on the stupid?

Stay tuned.....

 

[SalAunese]

I wonder what this luddite thinks of the recent EPA ruling? Of course, the large marketing consortium (EWG) is against it. Oh, another thing. Jurors are not scientists.

 

[JWolf74]

I read this the other night. I'm still trying to figure out how that study passed per review to end up in JAMA. Although I will admit I'm not as familiar with JAMA-pediatrics.

Hell, their main conclusion isn't even supported by their data, before even getting into the suspect methods.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Wow.....almost 20x and 10x, respectively, compared with "recommended" US levels, and 20x-40x with respect to "actual" US levels.

Yep, that's some "sound" science our resident idiot is quoting there....

It'd be like recommending a pregnant woman limit her alcohol intake to 1 glass a day, once a week, but then they "accidentally" drank 20-40 glasses a day during each week of pregnancy. Pretty certain that'd have a "negative" effect - w/o even needing any statistics to sort out those effects....

Will @naturalbornhawk come back and admit how bad his links/comparisons are?
Or will he double-down on the stupid?

Stay tuned.....

Some good points are brought to the table for sure. I wouldn't dismiss fluoride as being as clearly benign as you all seem to think it is at this point either as I haven't seen any studies linked to back it up.

Not all studies used fluoride levels that were significantly higher than what we see in the US (for instance, the 2886 study fsu talked about). According to the site I linked, many of the 7 studies that indicated no effect on IQ levels had their own limitations. Anyone care to look at the sample sizes in those studies? They're just as bad. Which brings me to my original stance that more studies should be done and I choose to error on the side of caution. Is that unreasonable?